ArticleMedical science educator2023
Three Dimensional Printing as a Tool For Anatomical Training in Lung Surgery.
Article in Medical science educator, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D printing in medicine: bridging imaging, education, and practice.Archives of medical sciences. Atherosclerotic diseases · 2025Article
- Application of three-dimensional printed models with near-infrared fluorescence technology in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery segmentectomy: a single-center propensity-score matching analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Pulmonary anatomy is challenging, due to the high variability and its three-dimensional (3D) shape. While demands in thoracic oncologic surgery are increasing, the transition from open to thoracoscopic surgery is hampering anatomical understanding. This study analyzed the value of a 3D printed lung model in understanding and teaching anatomy. Methods: A 3D pulmonary model was created and tested among different levels of proficiency: 10 experienced surgeons, 10 fellow surgeons and 10 junior residents. They were tested in interpretation of anatomy based on thoracic CT-scans, either using the 3D model or a 2D anatomical atlas. Accuracy of the given answers, time to complete the task and the self-reported level of certainty were scored in each group. Results: In the experienced surgeons group there was no difference in between the 2D-model or 3D-model with a high rate of correct answers in both groups, and no differences in time or certainty. Fellow surgeons highly benefitted from the 3D-model with an improved accuracy from 26.6% to 70.0% (p = 0.001). Time to complete the task was shorter (207 versus 122 s, p < 0.0001) and participants were more secure (median of 4 versus 3, p = 0.007). For junior residents time to complete the task was shorter, the level of certainty was higher, but there was no improvement in accuracy. Conclusions: 3D printing may benefit in understanding anatomical relations in the complex anatomy of the bronchiopulmonary tree, especially for surgeons in training and could benefit in teaching anatomy. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-023-01807-x.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.